late court, to decide case fresh from the influence of his powerful logic and burning eloquence."

But he was candid, fair, and bold in discussion. He bravely met his foe in open field, and never by subterfuge or evasion shrank from the full force of his opponent's argument. He was too strong to fear the shock of conflict, and too honorable to achieve victory by any but noble

means.

To these intellectual gifts were superadded a liberal nature: frank, cordial, and dignified manners; sincerity and constancy in friendship; kindness and gentleness, with which no arrogance mingled, to his associates at the bar, and a respectful deference to the courts before which he appeared; a manly and impressive face and form; a melodious voice; a fervid, not vehement, action, and dauntless courage. In social intercourse his conversation was instructive, while enlivened with wit, humor, and fancy. His home was the seat of a generous, refined, and unostentatious hospitality.

He had an extensive knowledge of political science. Trained in the Virginia school, he held with tenacious consistency the constitutional views of the state rights democracy; and while his broad mind recognized their modification, as required by the new order of things, yet he retained those canons of interpretation, as fundamental principles of his faith, which guarded the reserved authority of the states against any encroachments by the delegated power of the federal government.

He had, since 1870, devoted special study, with extensive reading, to Christian theology. His acquisitions in this field were very remarkable; and as a student, and teacher of students, of the Bible, he gave much of time and labor, in the midst of his busy professional life. The testimony of his pastor, the Rev. Dr. Hoge, to his piety, religious work,

and valuable counsels as an elder in the church, shows how possible it is for an earnest man to be at once a laborious lawyer and a diligent and critical Bible student.

His last appearance was in presenting to the Court of Appeals the proceedings of the bar upon the death of its venerable President, the late Judge Moncure. In his touching eulogy, clothed in an eloquence chaste and beautiful, and rarely equaled, upon a review of the thirty years of his judicial career, he said, in exultant tones: "Let us thank God that he gave to the country such a patriot, to the state such a citizen, to the administration of the law such a magistrate, and to those that loved him such a friend." And then, in solemn and almost plaintive tones, never to be forgotten, he closed his splendid oration with these prophetic words:

"Though a senior to all of us, he has preceded us but a little. The hearts of even the youngest of us are but 'muffled drums, beating funeral dirges to the grave.' Even while we are viewing the procession of the dead, the order comes for us to fall in. And now in this moment, when I am speaking the last words which I will ever utter in the presence of this court, as it is now formed, I can express no better hope for bench and bar than that, when our summons comes, we may receive and welcome it as did our friend and chief."

ever.

The eloquent tongue is still, and his voice is hushed forIn a week he received and welcomed his summons, and in the peace of God entered, as his friend and chief had done, upon his eternal rest.

MEMORANDUM

AS TO THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE NEXT ANNUAL MEETING.

To the Executive Committee of the American Bar Association. GENTLEMEN,-In obedience to your directions, I sent out a circular to each member, as follows:

BALTIMORE, 10 Sept., 1883.

DEAR SIR, The Executive Committee of the American Bar Association desire your opinion as to whether the future meetings of the Association shall be called at Saratoga, as heretofore, or at different places in different sections of the country, from year to year. Will you be good enough to inform me, at your earliest convenience, which policy you believe would best subserve the interests of the Association I enclose you two slips -one in favor of continuing at Saratoga, and the other in favor of a change of policy, and will thank you to return one of them to me, over your signature, within the present month.

As between Saratoga and Chicago, as the place of the next meeting, please indicate, also, which you prefer?

The time has been fixed, as usual, for the latter part of August.

Yours, truly,

EDWARD OTIS HINKLEY, Secretary.

In answer thereto I have received and counted 504 votes, resulting as follows:

1. For Saratoga in 1844, of whom, however, 29 vote for a change,

250

2. To continue at Saratoga, of whom, however, some vote for a

6. For either Chicago in 1884, or for a change, or for both-that is,

combining Nos. 3 and 4 without duplicating,

221

A few do not vote definitely.

Forty-two vote specially, scattering.

From this result I conclude we must meet at Saratoga in 1884, since the vote is nearly three to two as between that place and Chicago.

It is to be noted, however, that as only 221 vote for Saratoga, without change, and the same number vote for either Chicago or a change, the balance hangs even.

Respectfully submitted,

EDWARD OTIS HINKLEY.

NOTE. In accordance with the above, the Executive Committee have decided that the next Annual Meeting shall be held at Saratoga Springs, New York, on August 20th, 21st, and 22d, 1884.

MEMORANDUM

OF

SUBJECTS REFERRED TO COMMITTEES.

Resolution of John M. Thomas with reference to the preparation of summaries of the judicial systems of the respective states.

Referred to the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure. (See page 42.)

Report from the Philadelphia Law Association, relating to delays in the Supreme Court of the United States. Referred to same committee. (See page 72.)

Paper read by Seymour D. Thompson, on "Abuses of the Writ of Habeas Corpus."

Referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform. (See page 73.)

(351)